How to proceed.
At the start of the same (excellent) George Will column cited by Sloanasuraus below, (and before he supposedly starts dripping with elitism and self love) Will makes three assertions:
There are two different questions here. 1) Do we think that Miers was a good pick and 2) What should be done if we think she was not? I am already on record as stating that I think she was a disasterous pick. On the other hand, my initial reaction was not the emotional desire to see her defeated in the Senate, but instead the sad resignation that what is done is done and we should probably just accept it.
Pros and cons of her being defeated with Republican help.
Pros:
She's a bad nominee who has a greater than necessary likelihood of turning into a terrible justice.
Republican senators get to stand up for merit as opposed to having to make speeches making them look ridiculous as the following speech for Nixon's nomination of Harrold Carswell in 1970 (from here)
Cons:
We could do worse with the next selection. Carswell's replacement was Harry Blackmun.
Since Bush has shamelessy trumpeting the fact that she's an evangelical Christian (a convert from Catholicism to a non-denominational Texas congregation), if she's shot down, evangelicals could view this as a snub, hurting the coalition.
Overall:
What a mess. Thanks Mr. President!
First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.That is, Will does not think it will be a large negative for the conservative movement if Miers is shot down by the Senate and that Senators, even or especially, conservative Senators have every right to so. This goes against the thinking of probably many on the right who don't want to either hand a victory to the Democrats or further weaken Bush.
There are two different questions here. 1) Do we think that Miers was a good pick and 2) What should be done if we think she was not? I am already on record as stating that I think she was a disasterous pick. On the other hand, my initial reaction was not the emotional desire to see her defeated in the Senate, but instead the sad resignation that what is done is done and we should probably just accept it.
Pros and cons of her being defeated with Republican help.
Pros:
She's a bad nominee who has a greater than necessary likelihood of turning into a terrible justice.
Republican senators get to stand up for merit as opposed to having to make speeches making them look ridiculous as the following speech for Nixon's nomination of Harrold Carswell in 1970 (from here)
Some senators tried to sell Carswell's rather unremarkable career as an asset. In a famous speech in Carswell's defense, Republican Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska argued: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that."It's good policy to be the party of the smart guys.
Cons:
We could do worse with the next selection. Carswell's replacement was Harry Blackmun.
Since Bush has shamelessy trumpeting the fact that she's an evangelical Christian (a convert from Catholicism to a non-denominational Texas congregation), if she's shot down, evangelicals could view this as a snub, hurting the coalition.
Overall:
What a mess. Thanks Mr. President!
posted by Harsh Pencil | 10/05/2005 05:15:00 AM
Sorry to comment on my own post, but the best strategy may be to continue to trumpet her evangelical credentials, forcing the Democrats to conclude that this makes her anti-Roe, and let them be seen as defeating her.
It is mystifying. I was optimistically hoping this nomination was a brilliant ploy, but the more I see, the less I believe that. At best, it's a clumsy ploy. At worst, jeepers, maybe W actually wanted her.
Even Miers non-denominational denomination won't take stands on Christian issues, but prefers to let everyone find their own beliefs. See Harsh's link above, then navigate to "What we believe."
I think you better start getting used to the fact that H. Miers is going to be confirmed.
At the very least people should wait before accusing her of being a lightweight. Give her a chance to speak up at the hearings.
It is interesting to note that three condidates often cited as better choices: Brown, Luttig, and MCConnell are all lifetime government employees. H. Miers, in contrast, spent most of her life in private practice.
Under what scenario are you confident she's going to get confirmed? No way Republicans are going to the mattresses over her regarding the filibuster. If the Democrats want to stop her, they can. Will they? That depends on whether they see her as a reliable conservative vote. If they do, they will vote against her for being mediocre or a crony. Her best strategy during the hearings is tricky. If she looks wobbly, she risks losing Republicans. If she looks like she will be a reliable ally of Scalia and Thomas, she risks losing Democrats.
I think it is too early to tell. There haven't been any hearings yet. She hasn't been asked any questions.
Post a Comment